Lawsuit Madness - OMG

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is not a placard in the world to save your butt if you are too stupid, ignorant, or arrogant to read it. Even WITH all the literature out there, pilots continue to fly until they run out of fuel, into clouds, GRANITE, known icing, and all sorts of other pilot induced issues.
Frankly, there are far too many placards in our life that, like noise, we tend to ignore. Any more placards and we won't be able to see the dash. And they still won't save your butt!
 
danielabernath said:
My goal is to educate other CTSW drivers of this deadly design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct that may kill them if they don't put a plaque like the one that Cessna 162s have and like the one Flight Design has been ordered to put into their CTSW craft in the UK but Flight Design couldn't be troubled to spent the postage and .25 cents to send one to its American CTSW drivers.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just find some local print shop and pay them $20 to print you a pile of these placards, and then get the FAA database and mail them out to all the owners of the affected planes? A $50 bill likely makes the world safe from people with skills like you.

If your goal is to truly educate, then start educating and step up and provide the education.

If your goal it to litigate and try and find someone to blame for your accident, then I understand that and I would think you should drop the nonsense about trying to educate.
 
Re: R.T.F.Complaint

danielabernath said:
YOU SAID: Our pilot (lawyer) friend has filed a $10 Million lawsuit against Flight Design, the place he bought his aircraft from, his flight instructor, and several un-named John Doe’s…. for not specifically telling him he shouldn’t fly when you are very low on fuel! He also states the FAA curriculum for Light Sport Pilot doesn’t include that a “Light Sport Pilot know or be trained (on) fuel starvation to the pilot’s engine…”.

Your statement: " for not specifically telling him he shouldn’t fly when you are very low on fuel!"
The Truth: Flight Design is liable for products liability, breach of warranty, contract breach, negligence per se, failing to warn and failure to instruct that YOU WILL SUFFER FUEL STARVATION IF ONE TANK IS EMPTY AND THE OTHER TANK HAS 3 TO 4 GALLONS OF FUEL if you fly Flight Design CTSW. (sorry to shout)

You said, "for not specifically telling him he shouldn’t fly when you are very low on fuel! "
The Truth: FD is being held liable because it did not warn me and other Flight Design CTSW drivers that if one tank is empty and the other has 3 to 4 gallons of fuel that they may lose engine power.
Please read the complaint as the British version of the FAA has ordered FD to put these signs in their CTSW's:
CLASSIFICATION The CAA have classified this bulletin as Mandatory
COMPLIANCE Read and amend operations as directed, append to manual.
APPLICABILITY All UK registered CT2K and CTSW aircraft.

7) A placard must be attached to the instrument panel as follows:

MONITOR FUEL SIGHT GAUGES REGULARLY.
BOTH GAUGES MUST SHOW SOME FUEL.
LAND IF NO FUEL IS SEEN IN EITHER SIGHT GAUGE.


You said: "He also states the FAA curriculum for Light Sport Pilot doesn’t include that a “Light Sport Pilot know or be trained (on) fuel starvation to the pilot’s engine…”."
The truth: Flight Design CTSW specificially sells to light sport pilots. FD is saying that "pilots should know" and "we're going to send out letters to instruct on this fuel starvation issue when one tank is empty but the other is full or has fuel" but Flight Design never did and it is now a deadly issue for current CTSW pilots (thank me for suing them and saving lives)

Any other questions, you can telephone me at 503 367 4204. And yes. I've had a colorful life. and yes, I never back down. furthermore, I have a duty to you, fellow pilots to warn you of Flight Designs's deadly design flaw, failure to warn and failure to instruct that will likely kill someone someday unless FD takes some responsibility to pilots after they get their money.
Be a good citizen and print out the warning that the British CTSW pilots have next to their fuel tube and paste it in there. You might save your life or some future pilots life.
Click to expand...

I violently agree with this post.

It's post #19 on page 1 if you're curious.
 
danielabernath said:
Facts are stubborn things. John Adams
Saying the same thing wrong over and over doesn't change the facts. Here is a fact. Having 3 to 4 gallons of fuel in one tank (and the other empty) AND having 8 gallons of fuel in another CTSW's tank (and nothing in the other) will cause a CTSW to stop sending fuel to the engine.
There is no evidence of uncooirdinated flight.
Letter to NTSB and FAA, 'when engine stopped, pilot turned off the engine and then turned it back on. Engine started up again for 4 or 5 seconds and then stopped again."
I know that a lot of internet tough guys like to troll to raise the temperature but the facts are the facts. Even if you think that I should let Flight Designs intentionally not warning us just pass, I know that will not get them to reform their deadly ways. This lawsuit will and as the Justices at the Court of Appeals say, the burden of their defects are to be borne by the mfr as he is most easily able to make safe products or warn or instruct.
I think as a lawyer I am tasked with the burden of not only getting relief for my clients but educating them. Flight Design knew about this design defect. Flight Design was told by the CAA to warn pilots and put a warning in their cabins. Flight Design did not come up with a fix to the design defect. Flight Design did not warn that there was a design defect and did not instruct me or any other US pilot on how to avoid its deadly effects. Flight Design made an intentional decision to NOT spent the money to warn pilots as that would probably affect their C4 roll out. A letter to FD using strong language would cause FD and other mfrs to change nothing.
I have brought this issue to the center of discussion. This will all be presented methodically to a jury, an expert witness will explain it all to the jury and Flight Design will lose the money it thought it would save by not warning CTSW pilot of this deadline design flaw. http://www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htmOther mfrs will NOT act in the same fashion as Flight Design and you and I as pilots will be safer. At Cessna, etc. they are discussing the Flight Design negligence and are making decisions right now, "Look what happened when Flight Design didn't warn its CTSW pilots about normal operation fuel starvation. Lets not make the Flight Design mistake." Thats our system and roughly speaking, it makes us all safer.
Click to expand...

Dan, all in my opinion, the facts are the fundamental problem with your lawsuit. You chose to take off with less fuel than is required by the FARs. After getting worried about “strong head winds” (your words) and then landing 7 miles short of your destination to visually check your fuel levels, you oddly decided to continue without adding fuel, knowingly departing with NO fuel in the left wing tank and with VERY little fuel in the right tank – only “3 to 4 gallons” (your words).

In your own estimation, this “3 to 4 gallons” gave you “approximately 30 more minutes of flight.” That was a ridiculously aggressive decision based on your low fuel level. As you know, ½ gallon is unusable, meaning that even if your estimation was right, you only had from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 gallons of usable fuel. Imagine the other lawyer putting a couple of gallon-size milk containers on the table while questioning you about this.

Assuming I found the right one online, your POH says you burn 7.1 GPH during climb-out, and between 4.9 to 6.6 GPH for cruise (75% to max pwr). Assuming you had 2-1/2 gallons (the conservative side of your own estimate), and using 7.1 GPH (the conservative burn rate for a departure), you really only had about 21 minutes of fuel.

This is completely aside from the additional fuel consumption associated with run-up and taxi. This is also aside from the additional fuel consumption associated with the “strong headwinds” that raised your initial fuels concerns and caused you to make an unplanned landing in the first place.

However, even if your determination of “approximately 30 more minutes” was true (and the evidence associated with your final landing spot strongly suggests that you were wrong), you were inherently in violation of FAR 91.151 which forbids you from starting a flight (considering wind conditions) unless you have enough fuel to reach your destination and still have enough fuel to fly for 30 more minutes.

In this situation, it's probable that you alone are at fault. In fact, independent of the empty tank issue, you were the one person with the last clear chance to prevent your own accident.

Even if Flight Design should pay damages for not putting a sticker in the plane that tells pilots that having one empty tank is a bad idea, you are the worst possible person to advance that case.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bernath,

The attitude/rant shown in your posts indicates you can't possibly be at fault for anything you do that can be harmful to yourself or others. That is an abominable attitude for a man of your educational status. Absolutely NOTHING can be made perfectly foolproof as you have discovered. The airplane was not the fool; it was the person at the controls.

You have just proven to this group that your ethical standards in refusing to accept your own failings place you in the lowest class of the legal profession. Well, in this author's opinion even that would be a compliment given your refusal to admit your own failings.

Your pandering to this audience indicates the old saw about representing yourself in court and having a fool for an attorney. You want sympathy? Take your case to the liberal media. You may get some sympathy there. You surely won't find it here.

In terminology you may understand; SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
 
Last edited:
danielabernath said:
Saying the same thing wrong over and over doesn't change the facts. Here is a fact. Having 3 to 4 gallons of fuel in one tank (and the other empty) AND having 8 gallons of fuel in another CTSW's tank (and nothing in the other) will cause a CTSW to stop sending fuel to the engine.
Click to expand...

That is not your case, right ? That is someone elses incident in the same type of plane, basically hearsay.

You took off with one tank empty and between 2 and 3 gallons useable fuel in the other tank. The engine quitting during your flight was the expected outcome, not a suprise.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Dan, all in my opinion, the facts are the fundamental problem with your lawsuit. You chose to take off with less fuel than is required by the FARs. After getting worried about “strong head winds” (your words) and then landing 7 miles short of your destination to visually check your fuel levels, you oddly decided to continue without adding fuel, knowingly departing with NO fuel in the left wing tank and with VERY little fuel in the right tank – only “3 to 4 gallons” (your words).

In your own estimation, this “3 to 4 gallons” gave you “approximately 30 more minutes of flight.” That was a ridiculously aggressive decision based on your low fuel level. As you know, ½ gallon is unusable, meaning that even if your estimation was right, you only had from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 gallons of usable fuel. Imagine the other lawyer putting a couple of gallon-size milk containers on the table while questioning you about this.

Assuming I found the right one online, your POH says you burn 7.1 GPH during climb-out, and between 4.9 to 6.6 GPH for cruise (75% to max pwr). Assuming you had 2-1/2 gallons (the conservative side of your own estimate), and using 7.1 GPH (the conservative burn rate for a departure), you really only had about 21 minutes of fuel.

This is completely aside from the additional fuel consumption associated with run-up and taxi. This is also aside from the additional fuel consumption associated with the “strong headwinds” that raised your initial fuels concerns and caused you to make an unplanned landing in the first place.

However, even if your determination of “approximately 30 more minutes” was true (and the evidence associated with your final landing spot strongly suggests that you were wrong), you were inherently in violation of FAR 91.151 which forbids you from starting a flight (considering wind conditions) unless you have enough fuel to reach your destination and still have enough fuel to fly for 30 more minutes.

In this situation, it's probable that you alone are at fault. In fact, independent of the empty tank issue, you were the one person with the last clear chance to prevent your own accident.

Even if Flight Design should pay damages for not putting a sticker in the plane that tells pilots that having one empty tank is a bad idea, you are the worst possible person to advance that case.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

purdy much.
 
danielabernath said:
1. Conjecture but no evidence of:
uncoordinated flight,
2. evidence is that this condition occurred on other CTSW that were in the pattern
3. with EIGHT gallons in one tank,

My early estimate is that this deadly design defect (fuel starvation with adequate fuel in one tank) has happened at least EIGHT times crash Flight Design CTSW.
My goal is to educate other CTSW drivers of this deadly design defect, failure to warn and failure to instruct that may kill them if they don't put a plaque like the one that Cessna 162s have and like the one Flight Design has been ordered to put into their CTSW craft in the UK but Flight Design couldn't be troubled to spent the postage and .25 cents to send one to its American CTSW drivers.
You can speculate and make things up all day long. Just read the complaint as it is full of the facts.
img3.jpg


Products Liability lawsuit reasoning: In Greenman, Traynor cited to his own earlier concurrence in Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462 (1944) (Traynor, J., concurring). In Escola, now widely recognized as a landmark case in American law,[6] Justice Traynor laid the foundation for Greenman with these words:

“ Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection. ”
The year after Greenman, the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to all parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products (including retailers)
Click to expand...


You can't tell that the cap wasn't on right and there was negative pressure on that tank? Remember Bernouli's Principle?
 
dell30rb said:
The V-Tail Bonanza got its reputation as the doctor killer all because of these full of themselves, arrogant, faultless, current generation kids. :confused:
Click to expand...

Having worked search bases numerous times in the 1970s for missing Bonanzas, NOT ONE of those searches was for a pilot who had more than 200 hours. That's not time in type, that's TOTAL time.

The Bonanza was marketed as a kind flying Cadillac, many of them being sold to people whose careers gave them the money to buy, but not the time to fly. Then the wife would ask why they kept spending all that money for a plane they didn't fly, so a trip to the lake or the river or the relatives would be planned . . .and started . . .
 
SoloEqs said:
I don't think the plane has a Bernoulli's Principle placard.

Too bad he didn't think of it in time to add that to the lawsuit, he could have gone for 20 million!
Click to expand...

New lawsuit against Bernulli.


Problem solved. More money!!!
 
Now, ask all those {certified Flight Instructors} the follow-up question of whether they would take off with 2.5Gal useable fuel in an aircraft with interconnected tanks. Each CFI rode in the deadly Flight Design CTSW airplane with one tank full or with 5 to 6 gallons and the other one empty. Lucky those times but not on this September 1 occasion.
www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
 
danielabernath said:
Now, ask all those people the follow-up question of whether they would take off with 2.5Gal useable fuel in an aircraft with interconnected tanks. Each CFI rode in the deadly Flight Design CTSW airplane with one tank full or with 5 to 6 gallons and the other one empty. Lucky those times but not on this September 1 occasion.
Click to expand...

Maybe the CFIs were able to fly coordinated?

Maybe departing with 5 gallons isn't a FAR violation and your departure was?
 
As a student, I flew it coordinated and uncoordinated with 10 CFI's at different times with one tank empty and the other with 5 to 6 gallons or more. As the student I flew the aircraft 95% of the time. "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"
 
danielabernath said:
As a student, I flew it coordinated and uncoordinated with 10 CFI's at different times with one tank empty and the other with 5 to 6 gallons or more. As the student I flew the aircraft 95% of the time. "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"
Click to expand...

I violently agree with this post.
 
danielabernath said:
This is what is referred to as an off airport landing. Please note that the plane is sitting on all three wheels. (instead of flipped over as is usual when a Flight Design CTSW crashes).
imgsvr.ashx
Click to expand...

Here he calls it an off airport landing, and not a crash.

Yet point 1 of his filed complaint is regarding an airplane crash.
 
Not a single fatal accident in the U.S. because of fuel exhaustion. Not exactly a "deadly defect" for an aircraft that's been flying safely in the U.S. for 8 yrs. Also the advisory placard has nothing to do with a possible defect anyway.

Your NTSB write up with be just like any other fuel exhaustion accident. "Pilot's inadequate preflight planning." Hopefully the FAA throws the book at you for your violation and you never fly again. Prime example of someone with more money than sense and your lack of attention to detail is going to get you killed one day.
 
I wonder if suing the OEM is a workable defense in an FAA enforcement action? I'd guess not.

Along those lines, I wonder if plastering your position of 'not at fault for taking off with 2.5 gallons of fuel on board' all over every aviation forum with your name will help you slide under the radar? Again, I'd guess not.

Good luck.
 
That picture of the fuel stains around the fuel filler cap isn't unusual. I've seen that on enough airplanes, and it's always either an unsecured cap, or a leak due to poor maintenance. Those rubber seals on the caps don't last forever; the sun and heat and cold and rain and fuel and repeated opening and closing all take their toll. In fact, there's are ADs that demand that the O-ring seals on several Cessna fuel caps be inspected/replaced every year. Guess how many owners comply with those?

There are no perfect airplanes. I'd bet that the CTSW is no more flawed than any other lightplane, and any other lightplane will also quit on you if you take off with too little fuel, or if you get the tanks low and unport the one you're using, or if the fuel caps leak and lose fuel or cause a big fuel imbalance so that the suction in the one tank holds back the fuel and the engine quits.

There are no perfect pilots, either. Or mechanics.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
... or a leak due to poor maintenance. Those rubber seals on the caps don't last forever; the sun and heat and cold and rain and fuel and repeated opening and closing all take their toll. In fact, there's are ADs that demand that the O-ring seals on several Cessna fuel caps be inspected/replaced every year. Guess how many owners comply with those?
...
Dan
Click to expand...
I don't own a Cessna, but I DO replace mine every year. They are standard MS O-rings. $3 each from Socata. $1.45 each from Aircraft Spruce. Three bucks a year to do both O-rings when you buy from Aircraft Spruce is cheap insurance. Keeps the water out when sitting on the ramp. Keeps the fuel in while flying. It is a no brainer.

If you rent, check it on preflight and don't take the rental plane if there is evidence of a leak. Part of that personal responsibility thing.

Jim
 
danielabernath said:
As a student, I flew it coordinated and uncoordinated with 10 CFI's at different times with one tank empty and the other with 5 to 6 gallons or more. As the student I flew the aircraft 95% of the time. "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the difference between 5-6 gallons and 2-3 gallons?!? The former may be plenty to keep the fuel line in the wing root ported under all flight conditions, while the latter may not. Not to mention 5-6 is at least an hour of flight time and legal for takeoff, 2-3 is about a half hour and not legal for any flight.
 
How appropriate that this month's AOPA has an article on fuel exhaustion. Flat out 91.151 and 91.13 violation. No lawsuit will change that.
 
danielabernath said:
Now, ask all those {certified Flight Instructors} the follow-up question of whether they would take off with 2.5Gal useable fuel in an aircraft with interconnected tanks. Each CFI rode in the deadly Flight Design CTSW airplane with one tank full or with 5 to 6 gallons and the other one empty. Lucky those times but not on this September 1 occasion.
www.aspecialdayguide.com/bernathresume.htm
Click to expand...

That just means that you seem to be skilled in finding people that match your talent.

Btw. I would land the thing with one empty, I would never take off like that.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Those rubber seals on the caps don't last forever; the sun and heat and cold and rain and fuel and repeated opening and closing all take their toll. In fact, there's are ADs that demand that the O-ring seals on several Cessna fuel caps be inspected/replaced every year. Guess how many owners comply with those?
Click to expand...

Abby Normal's flying sperm isn't old enough to have the seals degrade to that point.
 
Since we can't convince our pilot that he's an idiot, maybe we should take a different tack. Let's give him ideas for placards that he can plaster all over his cockpit so he will be aware of all the "deadly design defects" that exist.

1. While modern avaition engines provide enough thrust for extended flights, their performance is greatly diminished if they are not provided with fuel.

2. While this aircraft will glide for short distances, it was not designed as a glider. PUT FUEL IN IT!

3. Before each flight, the pilot must pass a comprehensive exam covering topics including but not limited to: fuel consumption, aircraft systems, aerodynamics of flight, ADM, common sense.

4. If a placard tells you to land if either tank shows empty, you probably shouldn't take off until that problem has been rectified.

5. Once airborne, continued flight is not guaranteed. The nut holding the yoke is prone to make stupid decisions that can lead to injury or death. The manufacturer is not responsible for this nut.

Feel free to pile on......
 
danielabernath said:
As a student, I flew it coordinated and uncoordinated with 10 CFI's at different times with one tank empty and the other with 5 to 6 gallons or more. As the student I flew the aircraft 95% of the time. "Unsafe with any Fuel CTSW"
Click to expand...

Finally, you found the placard to hang around your own neck.
 
upstateny said:
4. If a placard tells you to land if either tank shows empty, you probably shouldn't take off until that problem has been rectified.
Click to expand...

I can tell you a lawyer would focus on the word "probably" and still sue the hell out of everybody anyway.

6. The safe operation of this aircraft may be adversely affected when piloted by a lawyer.
 
FastEddieB said:
I can tell you a lawyer would focus on the word "probably" and still sue the hell out of everybody anyway.

6. The safe operation of this aircraft may be adversely affected when piloted by a lawyer.
Click to expand...

You said "may".. IM SUING YOUR ASS.
 
bartmc said:
You said "may".. IM SUING YOUR ASS.
Click to expand...

You do know that that post just caused me severe mental anguish, and possible contusions and abrasions of the head, body and limbs.

I'll just have my attorney get in touch with your attorney and maybe we can settle out of court.

BTW, my ASS has very little in the way of assets you could go against.

But you could always try - I would not hold it against you! :no:
 
FastEddieB said:
You do know that that post just caused me severe mental anguish, and possible contusions and abrasions of the head, body and limbs.

I'll just have my attorney get in touch with your attorney and maybe we can settle out of court.

BTW, my ASS has very little in the way of assets you could go against.

But you could always try - I would not hold it against you! :no:
Click to expand...

How about I just put this in my signature:

"This poster's post are known to the state of California to cause severe mental anguish, and possible contusions and abrasions of the head, body and limbs"

I'm sure you just want to inform and warn the public and aren't looking to line your pockets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top